Assess Order Impact

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail by noting it provides an OrderPreview from ibkr_preview_order, implying an internal call to another service. It does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded ('Compute portfolio-level impact...'). The additional sentence about ibkr_preview_order is informative but could be seen as slightly tangential. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complex schema with multiple nested definitions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the optional preview parameter, the account_id, or how the order and preview interact. The output schema is provided, but the description lacks critical context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The top-level parameters (order, preview, account_id) have no descriptions in the schema (coverage 0%). The description does not explain any of these parameters, their relationships, or how they affect the computation, leaving users to guess their roles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'computes portfolio-level impact' including specific outputs like concentration change, buying-power usage, margin impact, and max-loss estimate. It also distinguishes from siblings like preview_order by focusing on impact analysis rather than just previewing an order.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as preview_order or get_portfolio_risk. It mentions using ibkr_preview_order for accuracy but does not explain the decision context or contrast with sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.